DX10

[Guest DefBringer]

DX10 patch??I thought the game was already DX10 capable?When is this patch coming out??

[n4gix 4,947]

>The question also becomes, why are games or other programs so>slow to use either dual processors or DX10? Both have been out>for a while nowThat is simply incorrect. There is ONE, count 'em ONE DX10 video card on the market, it IT wasn't released until a few short months ago. Granted, there are at least six "varieties" of the 8800 card available, but it is still a very limited - not to mention expensive! - bit of hardware.The Specifications for DX10 have been around for several years, but when's the last time a piece of paper - virtual or otherwise - accomplished anything? ;)Cirrus wrote the "specifications" for their new SR22G3 edition several years ago. Can you actually buy and fly one yet? Nope, they've only built several prototypes so far!DX10 requires more than one element to function:1) OS support2) physical video hardware3) driver support for the video hardware5) Application programming supportI've listed 'em in that order deliberately, because that's the order in which the four elements must be developed...

[greggerm 312]

The patch/update is currently being spec'ed out and is in the initial stages of development. DX10 support in FSX is not anticipated until the end of the year. (cited: ACES team blogs, ACES team member posts out here)

[btacon 1,772]

"Since this isn't the first time I've seen you making such outlandish claims of how easy it is to program multi-core support into games"Ryan...I think if you take a step back and re-read his response, you'll see he was saying just the opposite, i.e. easy if you are coding directly to the system, much more difficult if you are coding to a third party engine. Also, he mentioned that building a flexible engine, that can also multi-thread is not such an easy task.In this case Ryan, it seems that your response is the outlandish one.My 2 cents,bt

[Mike T 208]

I humbly think that you are confusing development timelines and hardware availablility timelines. The Nvidia 8800 GTX doesn't have any DX10 titles to run on it not because the software (DX10) hasn't caught up, but because development time for the new API is long and the API is brand new. If it took a week to make a DX10 game, the hardware would already exist to run it....but:The Nvidia 8800 is an exception to the rule. There is a grand total of ONE card right now available to take advantage of the software to run it, but there are scores of video card manufacturers without the hardware sitting around waiting for DX10 games. Even ATI does not have a DX10 compatible card on the market. At the end of the day, pick any 10 video card mfgs and only 1 of them have a DX10 card available. Apropos, even with SP1, FSX doesn't rocket to running flat out at 60 fps on today's hardware. SP1 will make FSX 'usable' for the masses and not just a chosen few. Even full dual-core support doesn't mean that your new Quad Core has caught up with FSX. FSX is far ahead of what can be run at fluid cinema quality on today's system, quad core, dual core or single core. Turn your sliders full right post SP1 and enable all enhancements, I think that will become very apparent.If that were not the case then hardware today would be able to run FSX at Pixar-like realism, but that doesn't exist. Hardware will need to catch up with FSX. Which is ALSO the reason that so many are tickled pink with FS9. Hardware has finally caught up with FS9 after 4 years and it will take at least that long for it to catch up with FSX.Right now, it is possible to develop a flight simulator that is 100% photorealistic, 100% based on complex fluid-dynamic computations, 100% modeling of every airport, house, cabin, blade of grass and man, woman, and child on this earth, every bolt, circuit breaker, raindrop and dust storm. There is absolutely nothing stopping this product from being released as soon as development is finished. Nothing except the fact that there is no hardware available to run it. Rest assured that there is also no service pack, tweak or patch that can get it to run either without AMD and Intel releasing faster chips.

[Guest LensHanger]

>Right now, it is possible to develop a flight simulator that>is 100% photorealistic, 100% based on complex fluid-dynamic>computations, 100% modeling of every airport, house, cabin,>blade of grass and man, woman, and child on this earth, every>bolt, circuit breaker, raindrop and dust storm. There is>absolutely nothing stopping this product from being released>as soon as development is finished. Nothing except the fact>that there is no hardware available to run it. Rest assured>that there is also no service pack, tweak or patch that can>get it to run either without AMD and Intel releasing faster>chips.>> What a load of Cods Wallop!I've seen some Outlandish claims in my time but this takes the bisquit :)Len

[Guest BOPrey]

I'm advising two game companies in architecture design matters. Which ones, I can't says as I am on NDA.You also missed my point. What I am saying is that making an easy to use high performance multi-processor (threaded) game engine is difficult. High level developers usually don't want to be confined in a restricted API environment. They're always trying to exploit the back doors and making the engine not as stable as it should be. The engine developer's job is to make sure that the engine can ONLY be controlled through a well published API and at the same time, provide a set of well thought, flexible, and powerful commands for the user (developer) to use. That's very difficult. Given the information out there about SP1, I think ACES did a great job. However, I think they can do more. Especial for people who have a multi-process(core) system.

[Guest JackDanielsDrinker]

>If that were not the case then hardware today would be able to>run FSX at Pixar-like realism, but that doesn't exist. >Hardware will need to catch up with FSX. Which is ALSO the>reason that so many are tickled pink with FS9. Hardware has>finally caught up with FS9 after 4 years and it will take at>least that long for it to catch up with FSX.Hardware catching up is all relative. I'm tickled pink about FSX right now pre-SP1. But then I don't need 60 FPS. 20 FPS with the scenery I see makes my day. Someone else who needs 60 fps is going to run FS9. >Right now, it is possible to develop a flight simulator that>is 100% photorealistic, 100% based on complex fluid-dynamic>computations, 100% modeling of every airport, house, cabin,>blade of grass and man, woman, and child on this earth, every>bolt, circuit breaker, raindrop and dust storm. There is>absolutely nothing stopping this product from being released>as soon as development is finished. Nothing except the fact>that there is no hardware available to run it. Rest assured>that there is also no service pack, tweak or patch that can>get it to run either without AMD and Intel releasing faster>chips.No it is not possible. Every blade of grass? That's not a hardware issue. Going out and modeling all of them is the issue.Also, saying it is possible stipulates that someone (Microsoft) would pay to develop it. Even they don't have that much money (or are stupid enough to spend it like this).

[ahuimanu 50]

There are many issues with respect to concurrent sub-processes and threads which suggest that multi-threaded programming isn't necessarily a cake-walk either. When these threads have to share resources or otherwise depend on the activities of other concurrent actions, the costs and complexities of coordination are high. For those who don't really know much about concurrent programming, here is a reasonable article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concurrent_programming) describing some of the basics and issues.Thread contention is a complex, yet solvable, problem. As Phil has stated previously (about 6 months ago), the very nature of Flightsim precludes all-out multi-threading for everything - some sub-processes would be unreasonably held up waiting for others. One result of this would be worse, not better, performance.

[ahuimanu 50]

There's nothing outlandish about it...It is possible, with contemporary software techniques, to do exactly what Mike has described.It seems outlanding because, just as Mike mentioned, we can't even conceive of the hardware needed to do all of that simultaneous processing.However, the imaging, physics/dynamics and atmospheric modeling are in-place do to these things in the 90% - 100% realistic level. Anything we do within a computer is a model anyhow. The model is NOT the real thing - but models can come "close enough."

[Guest JackDanielsDrinker]

Sorry, 100% modeling of the weather ain't going to happen even with infinite hardware. The current models are chewing up teraflops and they contradict each other all the time. Just look at hurricane tracks...

[ahuimanu 50]

I agree with you - which is why I gave a 90 - 100 percent rage, and that's ballpark.

[Guest JackDanielsDrinker]

Yeah, it is a percent somewhere between 1 and 100. But the OP of this subthread had 100% all over the place. That's unrealistic. I think we way overestimate how much we understand nature...hence my weather comment.I am enjoying the gradual uptick of the percentage with every version of FS, though.

[Tierborn 188]

>Any word when its coming, I thought it would be loaded with>VISTA but that's not the case. It is included .....Regards,Vern

[Guest TonyPiech]

OK, what are the video cards that can run DX-10 ? I'd just like to know. I 'm planning on purchasing a desktop computer with with VISTA Ultimate in about two months, what are my choices of video cards that can run DX-10 ?